If a person doesn't understand the first concept of molecular biology, then why would they be talking to a leader in the field about it? I still say a scientist should be accurate in his or her speech in an interview. Let the reader figure it out if the reader is that interested. Instead of saying "the fatty exterior would dry off in the atmosphere of space", a more accurate way of putting it would have been: "the fatty exterior would be worn off by the heat of the sun and the solar wind as it approached earth in space", or "the fatty exterior would've dried or burned up in earth's upper atmosphere" or something to that effect. I'll repeat for a third time that I think it's a poor choice of words for a scientist to assert that an atmosphere is in space. The heliosphere can't really be considered an atmosphere.
There are any number of reasons. For instance, I usually work late, so I have become friendly with the janitorial staff, none of whom know anything about biochemistry or molecular biology. But they are curious about the things they see me and other scientists doing when they come to clean, or about the equipment they see, and they ask questions. I can fully understand that scientist in the interview giving such a simplified explanation. Of course, I have enough background knowledge that I can pretty well surmise what is really going on at the molecular level, but for the lay persons, I see nothing wrong with the explanation as given.